Lowering reactance among theologians and psychologists is a task relevant
to today. Over the past centuries theologians and psychologists, have built up a
feeling of distrust toward one another. This distrust or fear stems from the fact
that either group views the other as a threat to its freedom. Herein is the concept of reactance. What is needed is a
non-emotional look at the causes of this
reactance and sow possible means to reduce it. An historical perspective makes
clear the origin& and ultimate amelioration of the problem.

Psychology, having lost its soul, is now in the
process of losing its mind. Or so goes an idea from
a 1973 text by Marx and Hillix on the development
of theories and systems in psychology. This statement
is more truthful than humorous. Man's soul was not
considered an important area of study by Freud. As
a matter of fact, Freud considered religion a form of
neurosis. In a letter to Ludwig Binswanger, Freud
stated, ". . . I have already found a place for religion,
by putting it in the category of the neurosis of mankind" (May, 1969, p. 27). At least most psychoanalytic theorists felt that man had lost his soul. However,
Carl Jung remained a mystic and spoke about a spiritual plane of man in his idea of a collective unconscious (Jung, 1918, 1934).

Strict behaviorists deny the need to study anything
but overt behavior. This is where the name
behaviorist
came from. John B. Watson, known as the father of
behaviorism, felt that only directly observable behavior was food for scientific study. Therefore, mind
was ruled out because it was a hypothetical construct.
Edward L. Thorndike stated that anything that exists
must exist in some amount and if it could not be measured it did not exist. This extreme position led to an
adoption of a monistic philosophy of man's nature.

Sheridan (1971, p. 20) states that there are three
ways of viewing the nature of behavioristic theory in
relation to man: 1. Behavior is the operational definition of mind. 2. Mind content can be inferred only
from behavior (implies that mind and behavior are distinct). 3. Mind goes beyond behavior, but only
those aspects manifest in behavior can be studied
scientifically. The functional view that behavior is the
operational definition of mind is traditionally held by
behaviorists. This view can be called radical behaviorism since it rules out all but overt behavior.

Recent Trends in Psychology

Recently the behavioristic school of psychology has
had the greatest general impact on society and the
field of psychology. The entire field of psychology
has adopted the behaviorist's experimental approach
to study, which relies on the inductive method:
postulating hypotheses and testing them in controlled situations. Experimental psychology is one
specific area of psychology that is a 'how-to-do-it
area: a training ground for psychologists in every
branch of psychology. To speak as though experimental psychology were a separate, discrete field of
psychological study is misleading. Every field of psychology, as with any science, is dependent on the
inductive method for growth. Whether or not a psychologist is a behaviorist does not matter. What does
matter is that the method of the behaviorist was
adopted by the field of psychology.

Earlier and less productive methods of studying
human behavior were rationalism, logic, and sensory
impressions. These earlier methods led to an inevitable
circular debate about man's inner qualities, drives,
instincts, unconscious processes, and nature. This sounds like debates on the number of angels that could
stand on the bead of a pin; many ideas were shared
but no one ever got the point. While these topics were
interesting, they could not be studied objectively and
thus lead to formulation of testable hypotheses or
practical theories concerning man's behavior.

It was this very circle that the behaviorists did break
in order to make psychology a science in the strictest
sense. Severing this circular process was not accomplished without a great struggle. Couching this dilemma in the rhetoric of existentialism, one would say that
man's psyche would at once be the object and tool
of circular discussion and dialog concerning man. Until
methods could be developed that would allow for
direct measurement and testing of behavior, theories
would go untested. Only clinical information and
subjective assessment would be available to study
man's behavior. Behaviorism came to the rescue in this
area and specified the need to study objective, concrete reality that could be consensually validated by
independent researchers. The most salient feature of
the scientific method for psychology is the demand
for inter and intra observer reliability.

Psychology and Theology in History

The history of psychology is full of instances where
the struggle to break through the inductive method has
been thwarted by various forces. One such area of
conflict is that of early religious tradition and superstition. Due to the suppression of an empirical study
of man, both physical and psychological, by organized
religion, man's understanding of human behavior was
limited. Humanity was being denied truth-scientific
truth. "The truth shall make you free," John 8:32.
Man was continuing to be bound by ignorance, fear,
and superstition. The organized church was apparently
frightened by scientific truth about homo sapiens.
This seems unreasonable since God is the Creator of
the universe, man and the natural, as well as physical
laws that govern the whole. Whenever science discovers "real" truth, that truth does not differ from
the truth authored by God himself. Jesus said, "I am
, * , the truth," John 14:6. A scientist's objective description of God's creation will not lead to falsehood.
The difficulty comes when man tries to explain the
creation without God.

Nowhere is man's fear of the psychologists' "revealed"
truth more obvious than in the study of abnormal psychology. Abnormal psychology is one branch of psychology that studies the
bizarre, morbid behaviors
accompanying personality disorganization. Due to a
belief in animism or pandemonism, that was sponsored
by early organized religion, man's understanding of
mental health was locked into a closet for centuries.
Pandemonism is a term coined by the author to imply
a belief that demons were blamed for any and all
aberrant behavior. Because a person was viewed as
demon-possessed and not mentally ill, he could be
tortured and subjected to all sorts of inhumanities in
the name of "Christianity." Demons were thought to
be extremely sensitive to pain; by torturing a person,
therefore, the demon should be exorcised. This belief
in pandemonism lasted well into the 18tb century. As
late as 1793 an official trial for witchcraft took place
in New England (Kisker, 1972, p. 45). Pandemonism

Psychologists should be aware of the
theologian's quest for understanding
man. Both psychologist and theologian
have a common purpose, understanding
man and being of service to him. It is
time to call an end to distrust of one
professional group by the other and
work together.

as an idea is too radical and overly simplified. Also,
experience seems to show that ruling out demons is
inaccurate.

The fact that this article can discuss demons and
science side by side is evidence of a change in the
thinking of scientists and laymen alike. More psychologists and psychiatrists are willing to consider the concept of demon possession today, which implies a move
away from the more psychoanalytically and behavioristically oriented views of mental health so prevalent
until the last ten to fifteen years, Conversely most
theologians are willing to see that demons are not
the cause of all mental illness. Pastors are coming in
contact with church members who experience deep
emotional and psychological turmoil that could not
possibly be due to demon possession. This trend shows
that both theologians and psychologists are allowing
the facts to speak rather than their stereotypical role
expectations. This latter point is a good indication
that the reactance between theologians and psychologists may be beginning to dissipate.

Demonism, Past and Present

The pan-demonism of early religious thinkers is similar to neurotic thought patterns that focus attention
on the all-or-nothing principle-either all behavior is
due to spiritism or none is. Conversely, ruling out the
spirit world completely by psychologists would be too
restrictive and overly simplistic. Some persons do
develop mental disorders due to demon-possession or
oppression. Therefore, to say that a portion of mental
disorders is caused by demons is plausible. However,
when an extreme position is taken an error usually
results. Pandemonism implies that one's behavior is
not a response to environmental or psychological pressures, but an enactment of an inner spirit. This view
leads to a philosophy foreign to therapy as a method
for treating mental illness. Belief in pandemonism as
the cause of mental disorders reached its peak during
the 15th century (Kisker, 1972, p. 43). Two Dominican
monks in Germany, Johann Sprenger and Heinrick
Kraemer, published a book entitled
Malleus Maleficarum (The Witch
Hammer).
This book was designed
to aid in exterminating witches, and was written as
a result of a statement in 1484 by Pope Innocent VIII
urging the clergy to do everything possible to detect
witches (Kisker, 1972, p. 43). A movement to destroy
witches spread, and the end result was the death of
hundreds of thousands of mentally ill men, women, and
children. It seems that this fanatical behavior was
undertaken in good faith, to make the world a better
place. However, the true Christian principles of love, prayer, salvation, grace and Christ's own examples
of treating demon-possessed people with love and compassion were overlooked (see Matt. 8:28-34, Matt.
9:32-34, Matt. 17:14-21, Mk. 5:1-20, Mk. 9:14-29,
Lk. 8:26-36, Lk. 9:3743). The greatest of all attributes a Christian can possess is love (I Cor. 13:13).
Most organized church behavior during the 12th
through 18th centuries did not use Christ's example
as a model for treating demon possessed people. There
were exceptions, but the majority were not using the
example of Christ as their model. It was the demon
that Christ banished, not the human soull (See Matthew 8:28-34.)

A few early scientists and thinkers such as Hippocrates, who.lived from 460-367 B.C., felt that mental
disorders were not due to spirits or demons, but natural
causes. Johann Weyer's boot,
De Praestigiis Daemonum,
written shortly after
The Witch Hammer
was published, went the way of many before and after. The fire
of interest he generated in a naturalistic view of mental
disorder was drowned by the "holy water" of the
church. This struggle was a bitter one that left its
mark on history. It remains for Christian thinkers to
explain this phenomenon reported on the pages of
history. One thing that needs to be said is that the
infamous events tied to the history of the church
during those medieval days are man-made errors by
organized groups of men resulting from a departure
from God's plan of evangelistic, humane, man-to-man
encounters.

Hypocrisy and Behavioral Analysis

Psychologists engaged in the study and treatment of
persons having personality disorders have seen how
inhumanely such people were treated under the auspices of early organized religion. Behavioral scientists
view man's actions as the product of the motives or
learning that operate within him. If a person claims
Christ as Lord and motivator, and behaves a certain
way, it should be because of Christian mandates. If
there were no hypocrites, or if the term Christian
were not so misused and profaned, the simple cause-and-effect relationship between professing Christian
faith and proper behavior would be more sharply defined. Psychologists have had a difficult time correlating principles of Christianity (I Cor. 13, for
example) with practices early organized religion used
for treating mentally ill persons. As psychology emerged
as a science in its own right, it began to trim away
the vestiges of misapplied theology and philosophy
that had so encumbered its development.

Outcomes of the Past Conflict Between Psychology
and Theology

Many psychologists viewed theology and philosophy
as unnecessary and irrelevant to psychology. Once
Freud made the break between psychology and theology there seemed to be no need to ever reunite the
two. Philosophy was seen as an attitude toward experimental findings, and in this way became a vestige
of psychology rather than vice versa. Also, since the
break, so many strides had been made in understanding
man's behavior that this seemed to further reinforce
the schism. Psychologists who adopted radical behaviorism and ruled out mind and soul saw this as
a necessity if progress was to be made in the field
of psychology. This monistic "philosophy" was adopted
by behaviorists who studied overt behavior.

Reactance: A Behavioral Outcome

Reactance is a phenomenon made famous by Brehm
(1966) in his ' book
A Theory of Psychological Reactance.
Brehm (1966, p. 9) delines reactance as a
motivational state directed toward the re-establishment of the free behaviors which have been eliminated
or threatened with elimination. Hollander (1971, p.
119) points out that a freedom we see slipping from
our grasp takes on greater value than one which is
not immediately vulnerable to loss. Hollander calls
this a "boomerang" effect. This is one way of viewing
the unfavorable reactions of some psychologists and
theologians to one another. Research by Brehm and
Cole (1966), and Goranson and Berkowitz (1966)
indicate that unfavorable reactions can be attributed
to the impression of a loss of freedom, or to the extent
of coercion perceived to be operating on another subject. This succinct treatment of reactance shows immediate applicability to the problem that has existed
between psychologists and theologians. Both groups can
be seen to have unfavorable opinions of one another
because each views the other as a threat to their own
perceived freedom.

Psychology, having evolved from the parent disciplines of philosophy and theology' can once again
allow for their existence without being threatened.
There comes a point in a child's existence when accepting one's parents can occur without fear of loss of
autonomy. As a child grows and develops a strong,
functional self concept, parents no longer pose a
threat to autonomy and uniqueness of being. Granted,
the struggle to maturity and freedom to be one's self
is in many instances difficult. However, once the mature offspring feels at home with "self' it is possible
to establish new relationships with parents. These relationships can be reciprocal and on an adult to adult
level. When either party refuses to relate in an adult
way they are creating a conflict that will lead to
faulty communications and eventually to mistrust of
the other party, When such failures continue, a valuable and meaningful relationship is destroyed. Child
and parent alike can learn from one another. Each
exists within a unique world. As the center of our own
unique phenomenal world, we view experiences in our
own way. Therefore, parent and child can at least
learn to view the same phenomenon from different
perspectives and allow each a distinct view.

One patent of psychology, philosophy, can be seen
as a study of values, how man views himself in relation to his world. Philosophy can be viewed as a
way to approach or apply findings of psychology.
Philosophy is necessary to give direction to science.
Technology is advancing more rapidly than man's
philosophy of life and ability to formulate adequate moral codes.

Science, as it develops a technology and life style all its own, needs to have some philosophical
guidelines. Theology, the other parent, is concerned
with man's relation to God, others, and self. Scientists
need to see that they do not live on an island unto
themselves. Their discoveries come crashing down upon
others in their shared environment. Eventually what they do influences others. Psychologists need to feel
a responsibility to others and themselves for their
discoveries. Without an adult relationship between
psychology, philosophy, and theology the psychologist
can lose his feeling of responsibility to anyone other
than his fellow professionals. If a group of people
do not try to relate to others, they will find a gulf
developing and as the silence progresses, breaking this
silence with meaningful dialog becomes more difficult.

New Trends in Psychology

Cognitive theorists were convinced that a monistic
approach to man was at best an oversimplification. Behaviorists had been trapped by their philosophy of
not allowing anything to exist if it could not be objectively measured. Perhaps the behaviorists' conception
of existence was too concrete or their measurement
techniques not yet sophisticated enough to do battle
with mind (psyche) or soul (pneuma). Cognitive
theorists or those using the concept of mind did not
hesitate to study self perceptions. A simple definition
of mind could be one's own perceptions of self. As the
cognitive theorist began to "reinvent" mind, a third
school of psychiatry, called existentialism, began to
speak of mans soul. Existential psychology is not
afraid of philosophy or theology, but weaves these
fields into its view of psychology. This action does
not necessarily sacrifice scientific status. As contradictory as it may seem, there are existentialists engaged in experimental research employing the same
inductive methods used by behaviorists. To restate an
earlier idea, it is not important whether one is a
behaviorist or not; what is important is that the
method of the behaviorist be employed. If these psychologists who accept mind and soul can still subject
themselves to the vigorous methodology of the behaviorist, then this shows hope for lowering distrust
among the entire community of psychology to theology.
This will lower reactance as both groups no longer
need view the other as a threat to their freedom.

Humanistic psychologists have been alarmed at the
way man's basic dignity and meaning have been oversimplified to a series of stimulus-response connections.
For man to be studied completely, it is necessary to
study man as a complex organism that consists of more
than overt, directly observable phenomena. Pleasure
principle, drive reduction principle, and law of effect
are all concepts used to help understand human behavior. These principles lead to a view of human
behavior that is logically self seeking, pleasure seeking,
and tension reducing. However, with these tools it is
impossible to "fix" a theory of man that is comprehensive and preponderantly accurate. Will, search for
meaning, love, and superordinate goals are principles
which are more abstract, metaphysical or difficult to
quantify. These latter principles can be seen as threats
to the parsimony of the earlier mentioned concepts.
y

They allow the organism freedom to do itself barm,
to do things that do not follow the. logic of hedonism.

Why should some psychologists be upset with the
present predominant behavioristic method of studying
man? For very few reasons actually. The deterministic
philosophy, and behavioral views concerning man have
been essential in the progress of understanding human
behavior. However, what is to be desired is a more open attitude toward phenomena that can be studied
or even allowed to exist in man. What harm does a
mind or a soul do to psychology, the discipline? No harm pragmatically as I see it. However, if psychologists accept mind and soul, they are then faced with
two concepts that are- more difficult to conceptualize
and study empirically. This seems to be one reason
why behaviorists are so reluctant to allow these concepts to exist. There is nothing wrong with stressing
the need for operational definitions of terms. This is
necessary. There seems to be nothing wrong with
saying that the only things that can be studied scientifically are overt behaviors. However, it does
s eem
wrong (or incorrect to use a less value-laden term)
to say that if something does not exist in a way that
our finite minds can comprehend or measure, it does
not exist at all. This seems to be deistic anthropomorphizing. When Thordike made his famous statement about measurement and existence, it was needed.
However, have we not progressed enough to know
that for every fact we have discovered there are
myriad other facts hidden from our present view? New
technology continually makes overt that which was
covert and hidden yesterday.

Psychologists need to be open to new ideas that
come along or even to new interpretations of the old.
Perhaps theology may provide input to help this
process. However, as long as reactance of psychologists
toward theology is high, this is nearly impossible. A byproduct of reactance is the continuation of a cognitive set that can hinder solution of a problem calling
for a new solution; this is rigidity. New data from
sources today considered mystical or subjective may
tomorrow provide keys unlocking mysteries concerning
human behavior. New theories of psychopathology may
be necessary to replace or augment classical theories.
We know that man is influenced by his culture and
society. Culture is changing and developing; therefore,
is it not possible that theories that held consistently
for one epoch of time may be misleading in a later
time? The environmental causes of man's behavior are
changing; therefore, psychologists may need to study
phenomena heretofore considered irrelevant. Victor
Frankl stresses the need to consider a spiritual plane
of man's existence and stresses the need to guide people to find a meaning in their lives. This lack of
meaning is what he calls no-ogenic or existential neurosis. This neurosis is different from classical Freudian
concepts of neurosis as shown by Crumbaugh and
Maholic (1964). Frankl was open to new sources of
conflict, value conflict, that led to neurosis. By being
open to new sources of data concerning man, new
discoveries should be forthcoming.

Reactance by psychologists to subjective areas of
study in psychology, e.g., meaning in life, soul, and
conversion, should diminish if they can see relevant
advances concerning man's understanding of man
stemming from a study of such variables. Also, if
studying these areas does not remove freedom to do
research as dictated by empirical methods, reactance
will be lowered.

With the increased understanding of learning processes (cognitive functions) teachers, psychologists,
and ministers are able to help persons with learning
and behavior difficulties. Therapy techniques utilizing value assessment and meaningfulness of existence
though relatively subjective do alleviate suffering. Theologians have for years been pragmatists. They have
accepted ideas that have functional utility. Psychologists should be aware of the theologian's quest for
understanding man. Both psychologist and theologian
have a common purpose, understanding man and being
of service to him. The ways of serving these purposes
overlap. It is time to call an end to distrust of one professional group by the other and work together. From
the research of Sherif and associates (1953, 1958,
1961, 1962) an effective way to remove the ill feelings
built up by mutual reactance is to view working together to improve the conditions for man's existence
as a superordinate goal. For the lowering of hostility
between groups a continuing need for mutual cooperation toward achieving a superordinate goal has to be
maintained over a period of time (Sherif, 1962, p. 11).